Jury In Smith Case Abused Public Trust

January 31, 2002|By Norm Pattis Norm Pattis is a lawyer in private practice in New Haven.

The rule of law took a direct and devastating hit in Waterbury the other day. No one seemed to notice. It's frightening.

The rule of law can vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Of course, it comes as no surprise that a jury of ordinary folks would forgive the defendant, Edward Smith, a state employee, for passing out copies of confidential state records about a proposed resident of a group home to anxious members of a Farmington neighborhood. No one likes sex offenders.

It turns out that one of the proposed residents of the home was a 56-year-old retarded man whom confidential state records described as an ``opportunistic same-sex pedophile.''

Smith, a former employee of the Department of Mental Retardation, was prosecuted for misusing confidential state records. There is no doubt he copied confidential records from the Department of Mental Retardation. There is no doubt he distributed the records in the neighborhood. There is no doubt, that is, that he viewed himself as above the law.

The only factor that can explain his acquittal is that the jury ignored the law.

If press reports are accurate, one woman was permitted to testify that she thought Smith's actions were heroic. He helped prevent her nieces and nephews from being placed at risk. Of what relevance is such testimony in a criminal trial?

A spokeswoman for an advocacy group known as Parents for Megan's Law was exultant. She resorted to the sort of faulty logic that made Oliver Stone rich and which defense lawyers use only as an act of desperation, opining that the prosecution was a coverup by the state. I doubt that the state is that organized.

Of course, the rule of law is more than the passing whim of six or 12 people charting their own course. The Roman orator Cicero reminded us that a republic is not just any collection of people, but a group bound together by common conceptions of right.

In this country we have a public faith, and it is enshrined in a Constitution. Jurors take an oath to follow the law, and we rely on that law for the security of our persons, our property and, increasingly in an electronic age, for our privacy.

This errant Waterbury jury abused our trust. Some of the soon-to-be-forgotten facts in this case are as follows: The man whose records were thrown about like confetti was never convicted of a crime. Only part of his record was released to the community, and that was the part that inspired fear and revulsion. And the public servant who took it upon himself to distribute these records took the law into his own hands.

This verdict is deeply depressing and frightening. Mr. Smith is no hero. On the courthouse steps he told reporters he thought his case would cause the legislature to revisit laws on disclosure of confidential records. His brush with a conviction taught him nothing.

Should the legislature revisit this issue, here's a suggestion: Make clear that abusing the public trust by photocopying public records and distributing them is a crime. Don't make it easy for the next jury in such a case to ignore the law.